EVANSTON, ILLINOIS: Bad public process at the local level — Harley Clarke

How about a good old-fashioned grassroots community meeting?This is a proposal originally made on:
— June 6, 2018: to Design Evanston, Evanston Lakehouse & Gardens (ELHG), Evanston Lighthouse Dunes (ELD). I believe that DE submitted my proposal as part of their official communication from DE members and supporters to Evanston’s City Council.
— July 22, 2018: petition to place an advisory referendum on the Nov. 6, 2018 ballot for saving Harley Clarke. My comment on the petition was: “Private conversations about public business are the most insidiously undemocratic traditions we have, guaranteed to create distrust, division, and suspicion. They are also almost 100% totally unnecessary. My recommendation is for Evanston Lakehouse & Gardens co-host a community meeting with Evanston Lighthouse Dunes to (a) pool resources (b) pool supporters, and (c) create a 100% public process for making a decision on the Harley Clarke Mansion. Such a meeting and process should be organized by citizens, NOT the City.”
— July 28, 2018: to a leader of Save the Harley Clarke (SHC)
— Sept. 24, 2018: to two individuals doing fundraising for ELD

1. PUBLIC PROCESS
The thing that has disturbed me most about this whole process is the behavior by the City. Specifically,
— in numerous ways, the City has acted in bad faith
— private discussions about public business are anathema to good public process. I include here any early discussions that the City may have had with ELHG folks. Private discussions as a way of doing public business has got to stop, from all sides on all issues. As “City” I include both city staff and elected officials. All these private conversations waste public time, especially when such conversations eventually cause the need for damage control (which so many City decisions have done in recent years).

2. STATE REP. ROBYN GABEL’s INITIATIVE
July 23, 2018 – Citizen comment at Evanston City Council meeting
I wish to highlight Robyn’s comment, which her staff member delivered during citizen comment on Monday (July 23) as a very positive development in the fight to save Harley Clarke and to have a better public process.

First, our State and U.S. legislators do not usually get publicly involved in issues before the City Council. That alone was noticeable Monday night.

Second, the content of Robyn’s comment was very positive for preserving the Harley Clarke through some sort of collaboration with the State of Illinois (as was the original suggestion that started us down this road). Obviously she made it because she thinks J.B. Pritzker will win in the November election and because his administration will be more amenable to funding projects like the one originally proposed (or something similar). I believe she would not have made this comment without having talked to Pritzker first.

Robyn’s comment should be printed out, copied, broadcast everywhere during the next few months — at every hearing, at every meeting, in every communication. I think it could make the difference in this process and the difference in funding any action that is approved by the residents of Evanston.

3. PROPOSAL: COMMUNITY MEETING OPEN TO ALL — yes, back to square #1
I reiterate my willingness to help plan and promote a community meeting sponsored by ELHG, ELD, Save Harley Clarke, and/or any neutral body (not the City) at any time during this process. Citizens talking to each other will be much more productive than trying to work with our outdated government structures and processes.

The specifics of such a meeting would be:
— The City would not be the host or organizer.
— City officials might not even be invited to be present in their official capacity. (That would be up to the organizers.)
— All ideas would be on the table, including the original suggestion for Harley Clarke — a State of Illinois Great Lakes educational and scientific center.
— So far as I can tell, there are now THREE grassroots groups involved in Harley Clarke: ELHG, ELD, Save Harley Clarke (the group who created the referendum petition).